[Blogger's note:  Tomorrow, August 15, 2012, is perhaps as momentous to DREAMers as D-Day, June 6, 1944, was to The Greatest Generation.   The invasion of Normandy marked the end of World War II in Europe and the fall of a tyrannical Nazi regime that made mincemeat of the rule of law.

Though the comparison may seem hyperbolic to some, I remember well my first visit to the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington.  As a lawyer, I was stunned by Hitler's atrocious perversion of the legal system, the issuance within a half-year after the Nazis' 1933 ascendancy to power of what would become roughly 400 decrees and regulations that "restricted all aspects of the public and private lives" of Jewish citizens. 

Conversely, doors that have been legally shut to persons solely by virtue of their status are now to be opened a tad, as Julia Preston of The New York Times notes in today's edition.  She reports on the Obama Administration's temporary clemency program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which may lead to the grant of employment authorization for youthful entrants to America found worthy of discretionary de-escalation of enforcement by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS): 

The work permit young immigrants can receive with the deferral opens many doors that have been firmly shut. They can obtain valid Social Security numbers and apply for driver’s licenses, professional certificates and financial aid for college.

Thus, just like those for whom the Allied invasion of Normandy launched a new life, one transformed from the status of a nonperson to that of a free member of society, DACA stands as a tiny step in the direction of reversing the application of perverse laws.  In this case the perversion of laws are found in America's Immigration and Nationality Act, a statute chockablock with befuddling provisions that punish innocent children for the mistakes of their parents. 

USCIS has today issued DACA instructions and forms:  Form I-821D, Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, with nine pages of instructions, a Form I-765WS, a worksheet to establish one's economic need for employment, and a Form G-1145, E-Notification of Application/Petition Acceptance, and has published a DACA web page with FAQ along with a warning about "Avoiding Scams and Preventing Fraud."  The agency also dove deep into the minutiae of the process in today's telephonic Public Engagement which answered many but by far not all questions.  The engagement followed an earlier internal tussle within DHS over the contours and devilish details of the program reflected in a 92-page draft as reported recently by FoxNews.com ("DHS document shows Obama administration wrestling with 'DREAM Act' policy").

When it takes the government almost 100 pages to tussle internally over the fine points of a discretionary policy, the question arises whether a DACA applicant should be represented by legal counsel.  Recently, in a YouTube video, two federal lawmakers, Senator Dick Durbin and Representative Luis Gutierrez, usually immigration-reform stalwarts, said a lawyer's help was unnecessary.  Curiously, the link now reflects that "[this] video has been removed by the user." 

Perhaps the takedown occurred because of a flood of postings that challenged the legislators' suggestion: See, Do DREAMers really need a lawyer? and Dreamers Do Need Lawyers and Obama's immigration changes cause confusion and Do You Need an Attorney to Apply for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)? 

My guest columnist, Karin Wolman, agrees that a lawyer's counsel and representation is necessary in DACA cases (as do I).  I recall the mess created by the legacy immigration bureaucracy, Immigration and Naturalization Service, when it tried to interpret and implement a comparable change in policy, the 1986 legalization program, a misguided agency effort that spawned decades of litigation.  So, DREAMers, don't take a chance.  Even if you think your case is straightforward, get good referrals, and talk to a competent lawyer who regularly practices immigration law.  Your life as a nonperson will end and your civil rights will be recognized only if you do DACA right.]

Durbin & Gutierrez Put DREAMers at Risk

By Karin Wolman

Senator Dick Durbin and Representative Luis Gutierrez released a video message to the DREAMers on August 6 that is one of the most irresponsible and dangerous public messages from a voice of authority in living memory. It is a deep disgrace that supposed champions and co-sponsors of the DREAM Act would advise young people who are eligible for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, "Do Not Hire a Lawyer." Yet Sen. Durbin said those words, doing a huge disservice to the very vulnerable class of people they are ostensibly trying to help.

These elected representatives perpetuate a dangerous source of confusion between unscrupulous "notarios" who engage in the unauthorized practice of law, and licensed, trained attorneys who are subject to ethical rules and have the ability to advise DREAMers properly on the process and potential consequences of applying for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

An experienced immigration lawyer who has carefully reviewed the applicant's background and documents can ensure that DREAMers file applications which will have the best possible chance of success. This is why Senator Durbin's patently false claim that "Virtually everyone will be able to go through this process without a lawyer," is so disturbing. Perhaps he has already forgotten that the Deferred Action application process includes no right of appeal, and permits no motions to reopen. This is a one-shot opportunity. Applicants must get it right on the first try, or else they face a discretionary denial that is final and cannot be reviewed.

Perhaps Sen. Durbin and Rep. Gutierrez have also forgotten that both USCIS and ICE have extremely poor track records with respect to granting any forms of discretionary relief to applicants who are unrepresented by counsel. The memos of June 2011 from ICE Director John Morton authorized broad use of prosecutorial discretion for those already in proceedings who have no criminal convictions, but the rate at which such relief has been granted in immigration courts is less than 2%. Self-represented applicants who misunderstand any of the Deferred Action criteria and thus fail to interpret their own eligibility correctly, or who get the standard right but provide documentation that USCIS regards as insufficient, or who believe that the information they provide will remain confidential, may be placing themselves and their families at risk of deportation. These are some of the key reasons why it is so very important for DREAMers seeking Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals to consult with a knowledgeable
immigration attorney or legal service organization, and why the message from Messrs. Durbin & Gutierrez will do real harm.

[Blogger's postscript]

My post above, Immigration D-Day for DACA: Get Protection!, generated a thoughtful, heartfelt critique by a good friend, and fellow immigration tribesman, Gary Endelman.  Gary took me to task for my "use of the Holocaust as a standard of comparison" to the plight of the DREAMers. On reflection, I was wrong, and apologized to Gary, and now do likewise to anyone else offended by my inapt metaphor. Gary, who is not only an immigration scholar of well-deserved repute, but also a Doctor of History, gave me permission to follow up on my blog to communicate a larger point, which he eloquently laid out, and with which I fully agree: 

I would simply urge that we all respect the historical integrity of each experience and not use any incident or event as a catch phrase to describe something that, while horrible, may be fundamentally different.  The historian in me.

I think you might want to follow up this blog with another one that perhaps can capture the larger point, which is that whenever any nation denies those who live there the human right to become all that they are capable of being, whenever we violate  the essential human decency of our friends and neighbors, whenever we ignore what unites us to focus on what divides us, that is the seed corn for intolerance and hate.

I also apologize to any Native Americans and others who may have been offended by my fondly recalled participation in the Indian Princesses, a Girls-Dads group sponsored by the YMCA's Indian Guides. No offense is intended; only admiration for the Indian nations' wholesome, natural and eco-friendly way of living on the earth. 

One of the great things about America is that we are a nation of doers -- not just talkers, but doers. We think big. We take risks. And we believe that anyone with a solid plan and a willingness to work hard can turn even the most improbable idea into a successful business. So ours is a legacy of Edisons and Graham Bells, Fords and Boeings, of Googles and of Twitters. This is a country that’s always been on the cutting edge. And the reason is that America has always had the most daring entrepreneurs in the world. . . . [M]aybe one of them or one of the folks in the audience here today will be the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg. And one of them may be the next entrepreneur to turn a big idea into an entire new industry. That’s the promise of America. That’s what this country is all about.

With an eye to November and an 11% approval rating, members of the House and Senate are trying at last to rebrand themselves as a “done-something” Congress. Would it were so with the DREAM Act or with urgently needed reforms to our antiquated system of legal immigration whose last major enactment occurred in 1990. Regrettably, when it comes to immigration, the American people get claptrap not high fives.

Three years ago the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) issued a bipartisan report and recommendations on U.S. immigration policy, the work of a task force study led by Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Thomas F. "Mack" McLarty III, former White House Chief of Staff to President Clinton. Last month, another bipartisan CFR task force, this one headed by Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of State under the second President Bush, and Joel Klein, ex-Chancellor of the New York City education department and Counsel in the Clinton White House, issued its study and suggestions to improve U.S. national security by reforming education.

Taken together, these reports sound a clarion call for immediate legislative action on legal immigration.

As the Bush-McLarty report proposed:

The Task Force recommends that the United States tackle head-on the growing competition for skilled immigrants from other countries and make the goal of attracting such immigrants a central component of its immigration policy. For decades, the primary goal has been to ration admission; in the future, recruiting the immigrants it wants must be the highest priority.

The Rice-Klein study on education reform and national security concurs:

Too many schools have failed to provide young citizens with the tools they need to contribute to U.S. competitiveness. This, coupled with an immigration system in need of reform, poses real threats to the prospects of citizens, constrains the growth of the U.S. talent pool, and limits innovation and economic competitiveness.

The epicenter of the logjam on immigration bipartisanship – at least in the Senate – is Iowa Republican, Chuck Grassley.  Although he voted “Yea” on the bill that became the JOBS Act, Sen. Grassley is an immigration obstructionist, seemingly blind to the links between employment-based visas, U.S. prosperity and job creation for our citizens.

Despite passage in the house by a 389 to 15 vote margin, he has held up a vote on the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act — a bill that would eliminate the per-country caps on employment-based immigrants and thus allow foreign workers born in China, India and other quota-backlogged countries to obtain a green card more quickly. Sen. Grassley has also blockaded a proposal pushed by fellow Republican Senator, Scott Brown, which would give Irish citizens parity with Australians in receiving E-3 visas.

The Iowa senator worries that “flooding the employment market with foreign workers when high-skilled Americans are seeking jobs at unprecedented levels, just doesn't square with improving the home-team advantage, let alone fostering a level playing field.”

Even more worrisome to Sen. Grassley are immigration fraudsters who steal jobs from Americans. He sees them everywhere, much like the young boy, Cole Sear, in the 1999 film, The Sixth Sense, who sees dead people all around:

Cole Sear (played by Haley Joel Osment): I see dead people.

Malcolm Crowe (played by Bruce Willis): In your dreams? [Cole shakes his head no]

Malcolm Crowe: While you're awake? [Cole nods]

Malcolm Crowe: Dead people like, in graves? In coffins?

Cole Sear: Walking around like regular people. They don't see each other. They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're dead.

Malcolm Crowe: How often do you see them?

Cole Sear: All the time. They're everywhere.

Sen. Grassley wants to place even more rigid controls on the H-1B visa (for Specialty Occupation Workers) and the L-1 visa (for Intracompany Transferees). The senator would inflate the wages that U.S. employers must pay skilled foreign workers (even though the law of supply and demand is producing that result already without an act of Congress), require feckless labor market testing of workers in occupations with low unemployment rates, and give even more authority to the Labor Department to send disruptive auditors to the worksites to investigate the supposedly ever-present fraud that he perceives.

And as Congress dawdles on legal immigration, Sen. Grassley has been a one-man lightning rod, jolting the immigration agencies under the W and Obama administrations and intimidating them so that they jump to his bidding.

Under pressure from Sen. Grassley, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Department of State have denied and revoked visas and work petitions, while sending ever larger legions of immigration gumshoes from the USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) on unannounced and repeated visits to worksites around the country.

Not content to engage in officious intermeddling with an Executive Branch immigration agency, Sen. Grassley has also been busy tasering the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General (IG) into issuing breathless reports based on unscientific measurements that unpersuasively document "evidence" of perceived fraud (links available here, here and here).  It's not as if the IG has nothing to do; rather, he should be spending more time investigating DHS's internal operations.

No knowledgeable observer would deny the existence of immigration fraud. I see its victims often among the immigrants who seek my counsel after having been bamboozled not just by a few unscrupulous lawyers but also by the larger ranks of incompetent and dangerous consultants and notarios – a population still coddled by the Labor Department even though USCIS, quite laudably, has mounted a campaign against them. And of course, some percentage of employers will bend or break or simply misunderstand the befuddling “rules” that the immigration agencies have written (or failed to write) in response to the existing crazy-quilt of laws passed by Congress since at least the 1950s. Despite the massive aggrandizement of law-enforcement resources to guard the immigration system since September 11, little evidence exists to show that visa fraud is widespread or that it occurs at any greater rate than in other federal programs.

We can electrify and fortify our borders, and send in the immigration drones and detectives, but we still need law-abiding sojourners and immigrants to reinvigorate our economy and uplift our people.

As much as NationOfImmigrators assails the wrongdoing of the immigration agencies, this blogger knows nonetheless that they are peopled mostly with patriots trying to do the right thing (as a USCIS Service Center Director correctly reminded me last week and as the USCIS’s Fiscal Year 2011 Highlights Report confirms).

They make mistakes, to be sure, and engage in insincere Washingtonian wordsmithing. Take for example the oft-repeated conceit that FDNS site visits are merely cleverly surprising methods to insure integrity in immigration petitions and are not law-enforcement actions subject to Fourth Amendment protections.

The veil’s been lifted on that falsehood, however, with the issuance of a March 30, 2012 federal court order in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) against USCIS and DHS. AILA’s lawsuit seeks release of three USCIS documents, viz., its H-1B Benefits Fraud Compliance Assessment Report (BFCA), H-1B Petition Fraud Referral Sheet and H-1B Compliance Review Worksheet. Although the suit continues, the court generally affirmed for now USCIS’s assertion that its actions in refusing disclosure are justifiable under the FOIA exemption found at 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E). This section protects records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes from disclosure “to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information . . . would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.” The agency relies on exemption 7E because the requested records, as USCIS’s own pleadings assert, have been “withheld to preserve the integrity and effectiveness of certain techniques and operations of current law enforcement significance.”

On what are these “techniques and operations of current law enforcement significance” based? The court’s order offer’s a tantalizing snippet:

The final page of the BFCA Report identifies several primary fraud or technical violation(s) indicators: (1) firms with 25 of fewer employees have higher rates of fraud or technical violation(s) than larger-sized companies; (2) firms with an annual gross income of less than $10 million have higher rates of fraud or technical violation(s) than firms with annual gross income greater than $10 million; (3) firms in existence less than 10 years have higher incidences of fraud or technical violation(s) than those in existence for more than 10 years; (4) H-1B petitions filed for accounting, human resources, business analysts, sales and advertising occupations are more likely to contain fraud or technical violation(s) than other occupational categories; and (5) beneficiaries with only bachelor’s degrees had higher fraud or technical violation(s) rates than those with graduate degrees.

Ironically, many of the same putative indicators of fraud or technical immigration violations are attributes that describe the precise traits of “Business Startups” – the very entities which bipartisan supporters in Congress hope to “Jumpstart” by passing the JOBS Act. Newly established businesses typically employ less than 25 workers at the outset, initially gross less than $10 million per year, by definition have been in existence less than 10 years, and, just like larger firms, may choose the H-1B visa category to hire accountants, HR specialists, business analysts and workers in sales and advertising jobs for persons who hold only a bachelor’s degree.

Clearly, USCIS and its FDNS unit are now running scared by Sen. Grassley’s gassy harrumphing, and see fraud where the President and most members of Congress, including the Senior Senator from Iowa, see opportunities for job creation.

The solution is to debunk the notion that American job losses are caused by increased legal immigration; rather, as the National Foundation for American Policy has shown, more employment-based immigration creates more jobs for U.S. workers.  

One true believer in the power of immigration, Steve Case (former AOL founder and now venture capitalist), who was instrumental in gaining the votes for the JOBS Act, says, "[m]omentum begets momentum."  Case now has set his sights on passing job-creating immigration laws before the November election (a controversial subject among some immigration proponents who believe that only a comprehensive solution, including remedies for the undocumented, will rectify America's immigration dysfunctions).

Perhaps with the help of Steve Case and other business leaders, Sen. Grassley may yet be persuaded to spend less time calling the President “stupid” and, instead let his love of job-creating startups push him to transform his antipathy into appreciation for employment-based, legal immigration reform.  

Many thoughts rushed through my mind as I read the heartening headline to a press release issued January 19 by the American Immigration Council ("U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Takes Steps to Improve Noncitizens’ Access to Legal Counsel"). 

What did USCIS do to improve access to lawyers?  Did it instruct the agency's Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate that no site visits could be conducted without prior notice to the parties' attorneys of record?  Did it decide that FDNS could not interrogate employers and foreign workers unless their counsel were present?  Did the agency instruct USCIS personnel stationed abroad at American embassies and consulates that lawyers must be allowed to accompany clients into the interrogation rooms?

Swept up by curiosity, I skipped the press release and clicked on the hyperlink to the USCIS interim policy guidance pronouncing in red ink: "This memo is in effect until further notice." As I read through the guidance, disappointment set in and two thoughts entered my mind: 

1. The American Immigration Council (AIC) must have come down with a mild case of Stockholm Syndrome.  Apparently the Council had become so captivated by USCIS that this highly regarded nonprofit seems to have mistaken "a lack of abuse . . .  for an act of kindness."
2. USCIS has assumed the role of Senator Daniel Inouye during the Iran-Contra hearings when attorney Brendan Sullivan famously replied to the senator's complaints about the lawyer's interjections,  "Well, sir, I'm not a potted plant. I'm here as the lawyer. That's my job." 

The AIC's misleading headline notwithstanding, the "new" USCIS policy guidance does not really break new ground in its dealings with lawyers.  While the policy -- to be sure -- quite laudably clarifies and limits the roles of non-lawyer representatives and attorneys admitted in foreign countries, and makes sure that notices are sent to both the attorney and the client, the interim guidance fails to "improve" clients' access to members of the bar licensed in any of the 50 states. Indeed, in some respects, it makes matters worse.

The prior policy, reflected in the Adjudicators Field Manual (AFM), provided: 

Chapter 12 Attorneys and Other Representatives.

12.1     [Reserved]
12.2     [Reserved]
12.3     [Reserved]
12.4     [Reserved]
12.5     [Reserved] . . .

15.8 Role of Attorney or Representative in the Interview Process. Frequently an attorney will be present to represent a subject. The following rules should be followed when the person being interviewed is accompanied by legal counsel: 

• Interviewing officers should verify that a properly executed Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative (Form G-28) is part of the record.
• The attorney’s role at an interview is to ensure that the subject's legal rights are protected. An attorney may advise his client(s) on points of law but he/she cannot respond to questions the interviewing officer has directed to the subject. . . .
• Officers should not engage in personal conversations with attorneys during the course of an interview. (Bolding added.)

The interim policy guidance substituted the foregoing with this new instruction:

The role of the representative at an interview is to ensure that the rights of the individuals he or she represents are protected. . . .

Any individual appearing in a representative capacity may not respond to questions the interviewing officer has directed to the applicant, petitioner, or witness, except to ask clarifying questions.

Officers should not engage in personal conversations or arguments with attorneys or other representatives during the course of an interview.

An applicant or the applicant’s attorney or representative should be permitted to present documents or other evidence that may help to clarify an issue of concern to the interviewer. When possible, such evidence should be submitted and reviewed before the interview, and when relevant, should be added to the applicant’s file. . . .

The attorney or representative may raise an objection on an inappropriate line of questioning and, as a last resort, may request supervisory review without terminating the interview. . . .(Bolding added.)

Note that under the former AFM provision a lawyer "may advise his client(s) on points of law". 

This express statement of the lawyer's role is inexplicably omitted from the new guidance.  Now a lawyer may merely present written evidence,"ask clarifying questions," and "raise an objection on an inappropriate line of questioning."  

The new guidance, in my view, offers a powdered-wig view of law and improperly circumscribes the conduct of lawyers.  Fortunately, however, the real-world interactions between USCIS examiners and immigration attorneys have not been quite so constrained.  Experienced examiners know that a lawyer can help lead to a just outcome in many an immigration case, for example:

• when helping to explain why a complex corporate structure involving multiple tiers of entities overseas and in the U.S. qualifies for EB1-3 Multinational Executive or Manager immigrant visa classification;
• when showing in a family-based immigration case that a divorce would be recognized under foreign law such as (heaven-forbid) Sharia law;
• when demonstrating that an EB-5 immigrant investor satisfies the requirement that he or she be engaged in the direct management of the enterprise merely by serving in the role of limited partner under 8 CFR § 204.6(j)(5)(iii).

The new USCIS guidance urges examiners to "remember that an adjudicator is duty-bound to develop the facts, favorable as well as unfavorable."  I maintain that an adjudicator is equally duty-bound to apply the law to the facts, and that a lawyer should be expressly allowed under revised policy guidance to play a role in helping the examiner fulfill this duty.

The USCIS should also expand its guidance by taking into account the suggestion of the Alliance of Business Immigration Lawyers in a white paper presented to the agency:

All Interested Parties Must be Allowed a Right of Meaningful Participation in Requests for Immigration Benefits and in Administrative Appeals.

Under current law and regulations, many parties with a tangible legal interest in the outcome of an immigration-benefits request have no right to make an appearance in person or through legal counsel before USCIS.

As immigration law has evolved, legislation and regulations have increased the actual and potential conflicts of interests. As a result, situations increasingly arise where a variety of individuals and entities have distinct legal interests to protect in an immigration matter. These parties in interest can include, among others:

• beneficiaries of an I-129 or an I-140 petition (who currently cannot get a copy of the petition to show that they were in compliance of the law, to qualify under the 245(i) grandfathering provisions, or to port to an approved Employment based petition);
• Regional Centers in EB-5 immigrant investor petitions, which cannot enter appearances to demonstrate that their investments qualify under the initial EB-5 determination or the removal of conditions phase, even though an RFE might challenge the Regional Center’s investment or its job-creation calculation;
• the corporate employer in the success of its foreign workers’ I-485 adjustment of status cases or the workers’ family members’ applications for extension or change of status, as the employer may be injured by loss of the employee’s services; and
• the guardian of a child’s interest or an estranged spouse in a derivate employment-based immigration matter involving the principal applicant.

The G-28 — indeed, the USCIS’s regulations and the [Immigration and Nationality Act] — should be modified to recognize and allow separate legal representation of each of the parties with legitimate legal interests to protect. Failure to do so prevents USCIS from getting all the facts and considering all the legal issues raised in immigration matters. That USCIS’s current technology infrastructure lacks the capacity to provide notices, decisions and correspondence to multiple parties in interest and their respective attorneys is no reason to deny procedural and substantive due process.

As a starting point toward ensuring "meaningful participation in requests for immigration benefits," the USCIS should proclaim that lawyers are not potted plants to be carried into interview rooms by their clients. 

Rather, the agency in revised guidance should affirm that immigration lawyers, as officers of the court, with a duty of integrity and honesty in USCIS proceedings, are essential participants in assuring that the rule of law is observed and justice done whenever petitioners and applicants request immigration benefits.

As suggested below and in a Bender's Immigration Bulletin Podcast I recorded on June 18 at the 2011 American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) annual conference in San Diego, Directors, Alejandro Mayorkas of USCIS and John Morton of ICE, as well as the President and DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, must be commended for taking significant steps to improve the administration of immigration justice (and along the way help the economy).

Mr. Mayorkas, to a far greater degree than any USCIS Director or legacy INS Commissioner in the last 30 years, expresses sincere respect for the rule of law.  He understands and requires compliance with the obligation of his agency's personnel to apply statutory immigration law in good faith as written and adhere to precedent decisions and national policies.   Mr. Mayorkas has brought the dispassion and intelligence of a lawyers' lawyer to USCIS, making changes based on reason and law, without favoring any person or interest, and committing to a policy of justice and equality of treatment and access.  (For any who may doubt or challenge my assertion, check out two sessions of the AILA conference in which Mr. Mayorkas offered his views [CD Nos. 17 & 86, purchase required]. If you think I routinely gush over the statements of USCIS officials at AILA conferences, disabuse yourself by checking out this prior rant.])

Mr. Morton -- despite a vote of no confidence by the ICE labor union -- has chosen to exercise leadership.  He has released two significant policy memos encouraging his officers to exercise  prosecutorial discretion, based on a 19-factor analysis, in favor of low-priority immigration violators and victims and witnesses of crime, and against perpetrators of violence and other serious felonies.

Most immigrants' rights groups chastised Mr. Morton, however, for not having gone far enough.  They attack ICE for not surrendering on the star-crossed program known as Secure Communities that has ensnared and deported far more petty immigration violators than hardened criminals. 

On the other hand, the nonpartisan Immigration Policy Center and AILA, the national immigration bar association, have lauded the new prosecutorial-discretion (PD) memos as positive moves.  They argue persuasively that in the absence of comprehensive immigration reforms which would align America's broken and wobbly immigration system with our national interests, and in an era of limited resources, the memos reflect a leadership decision to apply "smart enforcement" policies.  Smart enforcement, as the memos articulate, ensures that ICE's officers on the ground make individualized determinations of eligibility for prosecutorial discretion. 

Noncitizens whose personal circumstances, immigration history and foreseeable path to legal status cause them to rank low on the enforcement-priorities list -- the memos declare -- should be given deferred action.  Deferred action, in turn, makes them eligible for a work permit.  On the other side of the PD equation, individuals with particularly unsavory backgrounds or with rap sheets suggesting that they are dangerous to the communities should be fast-tracked on the due-process train headed for a removal hearing.  (One less understood but welcome aspect of the memos is that now an ICE attorney can set aside any Notice to Appear that he or she determines would involve an individual who is better suited for deferred action than a removal hearing, thereby freeing up precious judicial and executive resources to remove highly undesirable or dangerous noncitizens.)

Despite the deserving plaudits at the top of USCIS and ICE, it remains to be seen whether these interim, though important, initiatives will bear fruit.  Will the line officers and supervisors of each agency embrace their leaders' moves?  Or, as is perhaps more likely, will they engage in passive-aggressive behavior, palace intrigue and heel-dragging? 

Given the ICE union's condemnation of Mr. Morton and his policy memos (and their probable unwillingness to excersise conscientious compassion), as well as the resistance of some within USCIS to Mr. Mayorkas' commitment to the rule of law, the stakeholder community must apply its own leverage.  Here are a few things insiders and outsiders can and should do:

1. What Get's Measured and Rewarded Gets Done.  ICE must take steps to collect metrics on requests for prosecutorial discretion and individual ICE officer decisions.  The agency must make sure that it receives sufficient raw data to determine whether decisions on discretion align with ICE's national enforcement priorities.  For officers who persist in repeatedly routing objectively deserving cases to the immigration courts rather than to deferred action status, appropriate warnings and discipline should ensue.  Those, however, who instead apply the PD policy within its spirit and letter should receive ICE's approbation and career promotion. 
2. The Sunlight Brand of Disinfectant. DREAM Act supporters and others with favorable immigration equities should mount a grass-roots campaign to pressure ICE to publish meaningful data on the agency's actual exercise of prosecutorial discretion or enforcement.  To make this happen, community-based organizations (CBOs) should campaign to encourage individuals requesting prosecutorial discretion to waive personal privacy over key data fields that correspond with the worthy and adverse factors in their individual cases. If such waivers are coupled with the requesting parties' insistence that the decisions be released, then CBOs, the public and the media would know whether or not the PD policy is working. Congress can also make sure through its oversight function that reliable data is made available for all to see.
3. USCIS Must Issue Its Own PD memos. ICE holds no monopoly on discretion.  As legacy INS Commissioner, Doris Meissner, made clear in 2000, immigration adjudicators also have power to show leniency in deserving cases.  Mr. Mayorkas should formally instruct all USCIS officials that they too will be held accountable if they waste precious resources issuing burdensome requests for evidence and notices of intention to revoke or deny petitions or applications where a wise exercise of discretion under existing USCIS regulations would otherwise fairly resolve the case.  There should be no more spitting-on-the-sidewalk rulings placing otherwise law-abiding foreign citizens "out-of-status" who seek immigration benefits. A fairly administered PD policy could create immigration miracle cures that allow USCIS to forgive minor visa missteps.
4. You Get What You Pay For. Immigration notarios and unlicensed consultants (notwithstanding the commendable federal campaign to eradicate them) will no doubt continue to harm unrepresented immigrants by claiming that prosecutorial discretion is the new way to obtain work permission. Because there is no government form to request PD, however, the myriad immigration form-preparer outfits cannot legally represent persons seeking PD.  Only "accredited representatives" and lawyers in good standing may do so.  The business and nonprofit communities should therefore provide funding to lawyers (in compliance with ethics rules) so that well-documented and deserving PD requests with a good chance of success are submitted. Employers and labor unions who have tussled of late over the Obama Administration's "silent raid" policy should instead cooperate and identify/assist loyal and deserving workers with legal-fee-subsidized PD requests. 
5. Oppose Hypocrisy.  PD is not "back-door amnesty." No doubt House Judiciary Committee Chair Lamar Smith dislikes eating the words he wrote in 1999: "The principle of prosecutorial discretion is well established."  He also knows that the votes are not there to roll back smart enforcement or override an assured Presidential veto of any such measure.  Don't let Rep. Smith and his ilk get away with any false claims or ill-advised policy reversals.
6. Oppose Hate.  Immigration restrictionists are not pleased with the PD memos and will do whatever they can to attack any discernible trend to exercise discretion favorably.  The antidote to hate is the telling of truthful narratives by deserving persons who are allowed through PD to pursue, however tentatively, the American Dream. So, stakeholders, tell the truthful stories of honest people striving for a chance to make it in America and allow prosecutorial discretion to flourish. 

* * *

At least until our politicians begin to act like leaders who value country over power, let us hope that the new memos and the new direction signaled by DHS allow a meaningful chance for American justice to prevail against the insensate mob. 

Don't get me wrong, the agency occasionally makes the right call, like its prompt assistance in offering extraordinary relief at times of natural disasters such as earthquakes in Japan and Haiti.  Another correct move is the announcement that USCIS will focus more resources on targeting "fake immigration attorneys."  In particular, the attack on individuals without law licenses who harm the vulnerable public and abuse trust by failing to understand or misusing the immigration laws is worthy and urgently needed. (Indeed, the Department of Labor should mount the same attack by eliminating from its PERM labor certification regulations the authority of unlicensed "agents" to represent employers and foreign citizens.) 

What enrages me with the USCIS, however, is its toleration, coddling and empowerment of adjudicative officers in its own agency who likewise (in most instances) lack admission to any state bar and are beholden to no canons of legal ethics.  These officers, in my experience and that of many lawyers, regularly abuse the vunerable public by failing to understand and -- whether wittingly or unschooledly -- misapplying one of the most complex bodies of federal law, the immigration laws. Needless to say, much of what makes life worth living is riding on a proper interpretation and application of these befuddling laws:    

Knowledge of [immigration] statutes, cases and agency regulations are required . . . to evaluate both the nature and the quantum of proof required in each type of case. The legal rights and privileges involved are some of the most basic to the individual: the right to travel, the right to obtain or retain residence in this country, the right to citizenship, and liability to criminal prosecution. [Source: Unauthorized Practice Of Law In Immigration Matters]

I am not as incensed by garden-variety sloth and ineptitude, like the ever-proliferating boilerplate Request for Additional Evidence, asking for the sun, the moon and the kitchen sink, released without customization to the facts of the case, but with inadvertent inclusion of the phrase: "[Insert name of petitioner here]."  No, I am enraged that a body within USCIS that purports to be a legal tribunal, the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), would allow non-lawyers to render legal opinions that "draw . . . borders with pens that split lives like an ax." 

This license to opine and thereby destroy lives is no less outrageous than the Empire State's archaic Justice of the Peace system exposed by The New York Times, where roughly three-quarters of the "jurists" were found to have no bar association membersip.  The AAO reportedly employs lawyers and non-lawyers, according to comprehensive and worthy notes by Carlos Holguín of the Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law (with [his bracketing]):

Although the AAO considers itself a tribunal, not all of its "jurists" are lawyers. [While, as was claimed during the [AAO] Listening Session, non-lawyer decision-makers can issue opinions as solidly as their attorney counterparts, persons not licensed as lawyers are not subject to discipline under the rules governing judges and lawyers.]

The other leading administrative tribunals that research and opine on the immigration laws, render decisions and designate some as binding precedents are the Immigration Judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals whose members must hold an LLB or JD degree and be duly licensed to practice law, as must all Administrative Law Judges according to the Office of Personnel Management.  The USCIS, however, apparently views itself immune from these requirements, since the posted job openings for positions requiring research into the immigration laws and the application of law to facts, such as Service Center Director, Overseas Adjudications Officer and Asylum Officer, do not require bar admission or legal education.  Indeed, USCIS gives legal education a comparatively low value, that of a GS-9, equivalent to one year of federal service.

What prompted this tirade against the USCIS and the AAO? I won't say. The rules of professional responsibility and my duty of confidence and trust owed to specific clients prevent me from outlining the particulars.  Suffice it to note that I am a jaundiced observer of AAO machinations (if you're curious, that's why I'm yellow).  Notwithstanding my canary complexion, and general desensitization to specious reasoning, I just received an AAO decision that -- were it placed in Olympic competition -- would win multiple gold medals for intellectual dishonesty, disregard of precedent decisions, "refudiation" of agency guidance and overall callousness of heart, while purporting to be sensitive and heartfelt.

My fury arises not only from this mean-spirited and legally ignorant decision (which if written by a lawyer would be an embarrassment to the profession) but from the legal structure which allows it to remain protected and virtually above reproach (save for a blogger's rant), namely, legislative restraints that have placed on courts a duty of fawning deference to agency rulings of law and discretionary decisions. 

As I seethe, I recall what the public has been told last year: USCIS is conducting a top to bottom review; a remarkable Transformation is imminent; and the agency will issue a proposed regulation to clarify the rules of practice before the AAO and lead to the designation of significantly more binding precedent decisions.  More recently, the Inspector General of Homeland Security has warned of threats from potentially rogue employees within USCIS, and suggested numerous fixes, including a proposal that adjudicators' approved decisions be reviewed by supervisory officers before formal release.  Whether or not the IG's proposal is adopted, I urge the Director of USCIS to arrange for internal attorney review of every draft decision, interpreting or applying law, written by any immigration officer not admitted to any established licensing bar.

Until then, I rage with an elevated (yellow) level of anger against the immigration machine and its (Un)Adjustment Bureau where non-lawyer "mystery men [and women] running an exceedingly specialized enterprise" participate in a sad governmental parody of yellow journalism that publishes "little or no legitimate well-researched" rulings.

[Photo Credit]